About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
the foreign- policy support. famously, they both worked to speak harsh truths about the unsustainability of the soviet union, something that coincided with the implosion of the soviet union under its own contradiction. some conservatives will tell you it was almost sort of like moses parting the red sea. they tear it all down. i don't think it was quite that. but clearly the truth telling to the soviet union was not a relevant and gave enormous hope to dissidents working behind the eastern block. domestically, they had a tremendously important impact on each other. they were both trying something, not identical but something very radical that was a kind of break with the economic policies and domestic policies of the past. the fact they were not isolated, that they could support to -- point to someone else on the other side of the ocean in charge of the important country who was doing the same thing, that make quite a difference, i think. you can see in the tributes paid to lady thatcher that people who work closely with president reagan said it made a difference. there is this impressiv
. and yet promoting human rights isn't a foreign policy, and it's not a foreign policy priority simply because it's the right thing to do. it's time to our own security. it's tied to the possibilities of prosperity and of nations living by rule of law and of nation's living in peace. countries where strong human rights prevail our countries where people do better, economies thrive, rule of law is stronger, governments are more effective and more responsive, and they are countries that lead on the world stage and project stability across their regions. strong respect for human rights isn't merely an indicator that a country is likely doing well. it actually unleashes a countries potential, and it helps to advance growth and progress. so i ask you just to think of the country like burma for a minute. because of steps towards democratic reform and stronger human rights protections, a country that had been isolated for years is now making progress. as it reached where we wanted to be? know, but it's on the road. it's moving. and more people are contributed economy and participating in the
remarkable. i read sometimes left-wing authors who think america's foreign policies this steaming economic thing to grab every spare penny anywhere to be found in the world. that's implemented by certain aspects of our policy at the state department and the diplomats generally are quite insistent on this vote they assume america has the strongest economy in the world and always will have the u.s. does need to maintain serious commercial services the way foreign countries do that promote or exports abroad. they sort of do but there is no comparison to other nations which view protecting their export interest as a key goal of their diplomats abroad so yeah you're basically right on that. >> hi. it's nice to see you. my question is concerning foreign american investments. so in her book -- claimed that between 1988 to 2008 the u.s. government took nearly 2000 proposal applications for business in the united states so as you know the government can give more tax revenue so do you support full investment and what do you think about it? thank you very much. appreciate it. >> okay. the standing i
is a wonderful country, but by the way, it make -- look, if you look at foreign policies, you can see europe is as it is and germany, and ask what we never can do because we have the history of france. italy, for superran integration at well but without france it will never. so, of course i would prefer to have the stronger position of france, but by the way, i am optimistic that they will say -- the are doing a lot of making reforms, as they implemented some -- make a lot of decisions. they would not have -- cut expenditures, deficit by cutting expenses, and relation is two-thirds cutting and one-third -- maybe you can send from one from the negotiation team to palace to help, and overcome the different position. uk would have been better from the very beginning if uk would have combine itself as part of the european continent, but they didn't. but of course, mentioned continental europe. not uk. if you look at -- we have situation -- at if you look at e situation properly, and has to be careful. i think it's -- my -- the more we succeed in our common european -- the sooner uk can join. the
right or wrong, you'll never get in trouble. if you want to be critical of foreign policy because you belief, as a citizen -- remember, we have a thing called the constitution. all men are created equal. everybody, at least from the beginning, white, male, 2 1, with property, could vote. since then we've expanded -- well, i'm not being sarcastic because in terms of the world to have any white male who was sovereign, that we were sovereign. the american revolution declared the people sovereign rather than a king or queen. you couldn't have a king or queen taking your land away because they had finch it to you through sovereign rights. so if every citizen has a right to say what they should or should not do in our government, we would think we could respect that, and yet at the very beginning of the iraq war, when susan sarandon and tim robbins spoke out against the war, they had their invitation to talk to the baseball hall of fame withdrawn. and right after that i had a crew from fox news come to my house to interview me, because i don't go to the studios anymore. they want me? they
things that thatcher government did was scrap foreign exchange controls when it came to power in the late 1970s. so absolutely. privatization, eventual greater competition within the previously owned government sectors was a big plus. and obviously one contentious p policy was power between employers and trade unions. arguably now the u.k. has a much better industrial relations record than it did before 1979. >> you have to remember though in the '70s, you and i were doing our homework by candlelight when we had a three-day week. it did need rebalancing from that point of view. takes those lessons from those micropolicies which were successful whether there's some lessons today that need to be drawn by this current government because they are trying to kick-start wider only ownership but thatcher gave people the right to own their own homes but they had to qualify for mortgage on affordable income. >> that's one thing which the thatcher government did particularly in the early to mid 1980s. the big liberalization financial markets. scrapping of competition and credit control happened a lo
incentive to buy many of the things is rising sharply, including foreign bonds. and i think certainly the strength of some of the so-called core markets in europe, like france, for example, the past few weeks, probably greatly are due to the shift in japan's policies and maybe it's also starting to shift a bit into the periphery. against the background of the ecb from what i can see preparing the grounds for possible further move of monetary expansion themselves. >> right. yeah. >> so the peripheral narrowing makes a lot of sense. german yields are at such low levels, i wouldn't want to be rushing to put some of the o'neill trust in there. i think the spread timing going on with it makes a bit of sense. >> it's just interesting, as you say, tu look at what japan is doing and the attention shifting now to not just what they hope to achieve, but whether they'll actually be able to accomplish it. after averaging 0.6% deflation for the last couple of decades, are they going to hit 2%? is there, you know, a reason why people here, after the rallies that we've seen, should be a little bit m
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7